' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---Respondent-landlord filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a house situated at E-81, Block 2, Metroville Site, Karachi on the ground that right from 1-8-1992, the day he occupied the house at the rate of Rs,1,500 per month, he failed to pay the rent to him, The reply of the petitioner as opponent was that he was himself owner of the house in question and that he had never been the tenant of the respondent in the premises in dispute.
2. The learned Rent Controller held the applicant to be the owner/ landlord of the disputed house and the petitioner as his tenant therein. It was further held that the petitioner having maliciously denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and the applicant having successfully proved him to be his tenant, therefore, by accepting the ejectment application, the order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner on 27-9-1999. This order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged in the first rent appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 12-1-2000. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller was bound to refer the applicant- respondent to a Civil Court to prove his ownership as the Rent Controller was not legally competent to go into such a question. We feel that this is a very general and weeping argument as it is not an inflexible rule that whenever relationship of landlord and tenant is denied the Rent Controller is invariably bound to refer the applicant to approach the Civil Court for establishment of his ownership. Every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts. If it is found that the denial by the tenant of the relationship of tenant and landlord is frivolous and baseless as he has not been able to urge or bring anything substantial in support of his plea and that the stand of the landlord is supported by solid and cogent evidence on record, then the Rent Controller would be failing in his jurisdiction not to decide the controversy himself and instead directing the parties to resolve the dispute in the Civil Court.
4. In this case the applicant, besides producing reliable oral evidence, brought on record the following documents:--
(i) The allotment order issued by KDA,
(ii) possession order in respect of the applicant,
(iii) acknowledgment of possession by the applicant,
(iv) mutation order,
(v) copy of the lease deed, and
(vi) site plan issued/ approved by KDA for raising construction on the plot in dispute.
' As against this overwhelming evidence, the petitioner-opponent was unable to bring on record any material in support of his plea.
5. As the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any infirmity in the judgment or misreading/ non-reading of evidence on record, we find no justification for interference.
Accordingly, while refusing leave to appeal we dismiss this petition. However, we allow six months' time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. Otherwise, on the expiry of that, he would be liable to ejectment without any notice and with the aid of the police.